Mud-slinging, Right Out of “the Republican Playbook”

Loading

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) sit onstage during the CNN/Nevada Democratic Party debate at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) in Las Vegas, Nevada November 15, 2007. (UNITED STATES)

And Maureen Dowd “moderates”.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton pulling one out of the Republican Playbook, throws mud at her political presidential rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama:

Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that “there is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for — that’s the job of our next president.” Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama.

Obama avoids the mud, then slings it right on back:

Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: “My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.”

Everybody laughed, including Obama.

Dowd goes on to mock Hillary’s “experience”. Back in January, regarding the criticism on Barack’s lack of experience, I wrote:

In many ways, he actually has more experience than Hillary Clinton, when you look at his record of campaigning. Hillary may have 6 years to his 2 years serving in the Senate; but his total years of public office is 10 to her 6, as before becoming a Senator, her only experience was being the wife of Bill Clinton. Obama ran twice for state senate, and won both times; he ran for U.S. congress, and lost.

Personally, I think those with experience at governing states have more useful experience than lawmakers. As Ken Taylor writes,

The nation historically views the executive experience of a Governor as a strong qualification to step into the Presidency since each has governed at the helm of a state government.

Furthermore, as far as the electability of sitting Senators goes:

historically this nation does not elect sitting Senators. Why ? The best explanation that I have heard and agree with is that bickering from the Senate floor and maneuvering to pass a bill does not make a leader nor qualify one for the highest office in the land and the most powerful position in the world. Senators are usually professional politicians who have either had no executive experience at all or very little and many have made the office of Senator their career.

Obama “qualifying” his foreign policy experience:

Speaking around Iowa this week, Obama made the point that his exotic upbringing, family in Kenya and years as an outsider allow him to see the world with more understanding, and helped form his judgment about resisting the Iraq war.

“I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia,” he said. “If you don’t understand these cultures then it’s very hard for you to make good foreign policy decisions. Foreign policy is all about judgment.”

Lmao! Go get ‘im Hillary:

“With all due respect,” she told a crowd in Iowa. “I don’t think living in a foreign country between the ages of 6 and 10 is foreign policy experience.”

And NYTimes columnist Dowd offers the final barb, straight out of the “Republican Playbook”:

But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?

Ouch.
 
Read the whole thing. One of the rare times I’d plug a Maureen Dowd column.

Hat tip: The Dennis Prager Show

0 0 votes
Article Rating
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh my! These are your Democrapic candidates in all there glory. One might even think that there is half a brain between them, but they would be wrong, wouldn’t they.

All of this and not a word about their stand on NSA wiretapping, Patriot act, or how they intend to carry on the ongoing battle against terrorism let alone immigration, Social Security etc.

NSA wiretapping-they rhetorically oppose, but Democrats pass legislation in support thereof

Patriot Act (original was co-written by Dems, passed by Dem Senate), revamped version even more written, and passed by Dems; ie, they rhetorically oppose with all their might, then in deeds rather than words support

Pretty much the same story across the board.
rhetorically oppose Iraq war, but deeds support it
etc

Scott,

I found an article about wiretapping in the 90s BY the Dems (they loved it then, but islamofascists were not their target). I have some more research/cross referencing to do but, unless next week is like the last two, I should post it soon.

ChrisG,

Looking forward to your posting. I listened to an interesting exchange on BlogTalkRadio last night – on this very subject of wiretapping.

Apparently, if the NY Times called wiretapping bad, then it IS bad…

Ironically, the article I am trying to find (I printed it out 2 years ago but Google cannot locate it) references that the NYTs had no issues with wiretapping.